East Side Development Code still in limbo

Summit County Council members have not had many significant discussions regarding the changes that are being proposed for the East Side Development Code since the joint meeting with the Eastern Summit County Planning Commission in March.

The new zoning districts that have already been proposed are:

Agriculture (AG-1): one unit per one acre. This zone is intended to replace and expand the existing Highway Corridor Zone. It will extend 500 feet from the center line of all county roads, except along Democrat Alley, Boulderville Road and Rob Young Lane in Oakley.

Agriculture (AG-6): one unit per six acres

Agriculture (AG-20): one unit per 20 acres. This zone would be primarily agricultural.

Agriculture (AG-80): This zone replaces the AG-100 and an AG-160 zones.

The Eastern Summit County Planning Commission came close on Thursday to forwarding a final recommendation to the Summit County Council on the rezone opportunities and new master plan development process, but decided to delay a decision until the December meeting.

Nearly a year ago, commissioners handed the County Council a positive recommendation on the newly created zoning district boundaries and amendments to Chapters 3 and 4 of the East Side Development Code. However, it did not include the rezone opportunities or the development process that would be required in those zones.

The following are being considered:

Rural Residential (R-R): one unit per one acre

Residential Subdivision (RS): three units per acre

Resort Commercial (RC)

Village overlay zone (VOZ)

Family Estate Subdivisions

The County Council has been reticent to resume the discussion without those changes to avoid reviewing it in a "piecemeal fashion," according to County Council Chair Roger Armstrong. He said "we have been giving them time to do that."

"We have been waiting for them to complete that process because whatever they decide to do in terms of that MPD (Master Plan Development) and overlays has to be read against what they have already handed up to us," Armstrong said.

For more than two years, planning commissioners labored over the development code and new zoning district maps before agreeing, in a split vote, to forward a document that they say provides property owners with more options and development opportunities. Several dozen hearings were held that were often contentious and ended in shouting matches.

Recommended Stories For You

At a joint meeting with council members last month, commissioners expressed frustration that the issue had not yet been addressed by the County Council, while others said they understood why it hadn't.

"It seems like you have put it on the back burner," Commissioner Chris Ure said during the Oct. 26 meeting. "I'm not in favor of sending the MPD up until you start working on Chapters 3 and 4. I'm afraid they will get worked together."

Commissioner Doug Clyde said the proposal is complicated because "what we forwarded to you was a half-done piece of work." The vote was split 4-3 on the first recommendation, with Clyde, Tonja Hanson and Ken Henrie dissenting.

"We forwarded you a massive rezone without citing why the rezone is desirable," Clyde said. "I'm not at all surprised you would be reticent to adopt it."

On Nov. 30, the County Council is expected to hold a work session on Chapters 3 and 4. It will be their first review of the amendments since March.

"At our last meeting we understood that they would not be getting that to us until the end of November and then we would have everything we needed to move forward," Armstrong said. "There are some internal disagreements within the commission and that has been consistent throughout the process. What was handed to us in January was definitely not a unanimous decision and what they are going through now is still not a unanimous decision.

"But they are doing what they are supposed to do which is wrestle with the issue," he said.

Armstrong said he expected the discussion over the master plan development process and rezone opportunities to be robust. He added that he understood people are getting frustrated with the delay.

"We don't want to do this in a piecemeal fashion when we don't know what they are bringing up to us and then have to come up with something else," Armstrong said. "We also don't want to get too deep into this important material from a public engagement standpoint during the holidays."

Armstrong said the County Council will likely dive into the issue more after the New Year and the two new County Council members are sworn in.

"We haven't been shy about our concerns with this, especially with the highway corridor," Armstrong said. "We have done what we can do and, from my perspective, will have to wait until the council has everything."

The new zoning districts that have already been proposed are:

Agriculture (AG-1): one unit per one acre. This zone is intended to replace and expand the existing Highway Corridor Zone. It will extend 500 feet from the center line of all county roads, except along Democrat Alley, Boulderville Road and Rob Young Lane in Oakley.

Agriculture (AG-6): one unit per six acres

Agriculture (AG-20): one unit per 20 acres. This zone would be primarily agricultural.

Agriculture (AG-80): This zone replaces the AG-100 and an AG-160 zones.